Alex Salmond's comments regarding a currency union

[Robinson]

A conundrum of history. What do James VI of Scotland and James I of England have in common ?

They both neglected their own country in order to curry favour with the English barons and dukes. As did the kings who came after.

Yes, I am aware of the actual point being made here, that they are the same man...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Wonder what would happen with UKIP if the public voted to stay in the EU?

Being optimistic for the English, I'd hope no one ever hears another peep out of them.

 

[TheKnightWho]

The UK is not a proper democracy. The unelected House of Lords and the unelected monarch being the first giveaways of that.

I'm going to have to call you out on the House of Lords point.

Having an unelected second chamber that is able to be directly overruled by the elected first chamber in extreme cases is the best system. Contrary to popular belief, the HoL is mostly filled with experts in various fields; for example, 1/3 of the Lords have science degrees, compared to just a single MP. I, along with a lot of other people, appreciate having more than just the views of career politicians represented in government.

If we elected the second chamber as well, we'd just end up in constant gridlock (just look at the United States), as members of both houses would refuse to compromise due to wanting to get re-elected. The only reason this doesn't happen all the time in a lot of European countries is because most of them don't have First Past the Post like us, and so don't have 2 parties dominating the show. The US do, which is why their politics is a mess. Even with Proportional Representation, everything works at a snail's pace.

There's a pretty damn good reason for keeping the queen, too. She keeps democracy in this country relatively stable. (Hear me out on this one.) In countries where there are constitutions designed to keep democracy in check, there is a pretty-much universal trend of that constitution being misinterpreted, abused, changed and otherwise maltreated by Machiavellian politicians. The fact that the British "constitution" is based on precedent over hundreds of years rather than a physical document makes it actually much harder to do anything against it. There's almost always a backlash by the Commons and/or the Lords on the basis of this precedent, and it's very difficult for any single politician to abuse the system. On the other hand, with a constitution, if a court rules in your favour that your crazy interpretation is technically valid, you're free to do what you like; this is not uncommon in many countries around the world, especially when the courts are in the pockets of politicians.

With regards to the queen herself, though, she's the perfect way to put dangerous power in a politically castrated body. If she's the only one that can strike down a law for any reason, and there'd be outrage if she did so, then there's no way any Prime Minister can gain an absolute veto as people would see it as an infringement on the sovereignty of the queen's power. In other words, that power is effectively unusable by anyone, and for good reason. This is only one example of several that prevent politicians in this country getting too big for their boots, unlike several republics I can think of. Another one would be the declaration of war without mandate. I suppose one argument would be that there would be outrage if a politician did it as well, but the difference is that a) the queen can't keep her use of it secret, and b) a politician would make sure to have a physical constitution on his side before doing so, which would be inevitable if we became a republic. The public's outrage would be impotent.

If you think politics is bad in this country, just look over at our friends across the pond. The ones that certain special-interest groups here seem so keen to emulate.

 

[Robinson]

Whereas what we have here instead is politicians in the pockets of greedy corporations and tax-dodging donors to the Conservative Party being invited to draw up policies for them (I'm referring to Adrian Beecroft here primarily). This is also why US politics is a 2-horse race - the Republicans and the Democrats have both sold out to pander to the corporations and bankers who caused the global economic crisis, and Barack Obama has failed to bring any of them to justice despite winning a second term in office.

And I'd suggest that we do have Machiavellian self-serving politicians in this country, if the Queen is supposed to guard against that she's failed spectacularly. And the royals now do have a layer of protection, as the royal family are now exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Whereas what we have here instead is politicians in the pockets of greedy corporations and tax-dodging donors to the Conservative Party being invited to draw up policies for them (I'm referring to Adrian Beecroft here primarily). This is also why US politics is a 2-horse race - the Republicans and the Democrats have both sold out to pander to the corporations and bankers who caused the global economic crisis, and Barack Obama has failed to bring any of them to justice despite winning a second term in office.

And I'd suggest that we do have Machiavellian self-serving politicians in this country, if the Queen is supposed to guard against that she's failed spectacularly. And the royals now do have a layer of protection, as the royal family are now exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

It would be a whole lot worse if she wasn't there, as it is in America. If you think it's bad here, at least you don't have politicians receiving hundreds of millions in campaign donations from corporations.

I never said the queen was actively meant to be stopping Machiavellian politicians. I said she was preventing them getting really dangerous power by simply existing. There is a big, big difference, and if you think Scotland won't have people trying to abuse the system if they become independent then you're completely delusional. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the whole independence movement is just a power-grab by someone abusing the system.

I'm saying what we have is the best of a bad lot. All the supposedly better options are massively open to abuse.

 

[tbtc]

Wonder what would happen with UKIP if the public voted to stay in the EU?

An interesting question.

We've seen voting reform for Westminster elections wiped off the agenda for the next generation by Nick Clegg's daft idea of rushing to an AV referendum as soon as he could (rather than building a strong case, ensuring that it gained sufficient public support, and only then asking the question in a referendum).

The SNP and UKIP have got to be careful that they don't have "their" intended referenda too soon, because if they lose then it'll be a long time before they get the chance again (thinking about how long it was after the 1979 devolution referendum in Scotland before a sufficient case could be built to win a referendum on the issue).

Whilst the anti-EU crowd tend to be noisier, I think that if there were a referendum, there would be a majority in favour of EU membership, which is why Farage is probably nervous about a Tory referendum (because if the referendum vote was to stay in the EU then there'd be little need for a UKIP - other than comedy value).

 

[Robinson]

The SNP and UKIP have got to be careful that they don't have "their" intended referenda too soon, because if they lose then it'll be a long time before they get the chance again (thinking about how long it was after the 1979 devolution referendum in Scotland before a sufficient case could be built to win a referendum on the issue).

Interesting that you bring 1979 into it. Thankfully the government won't be able to rig the results, like they did back then.

 

[TheKnightWho]

the anti-EU crowd tend to be noisier, I think that if there were a referendum, there would be a majority in favour of EU membership, which is why Farage is probably nervous about a Tory referendum (because if the referendum vote was to stay in the EU then there'd be little need for a UKIP - other than comedy value).

I'd say it's probably the opposite, actually. Right now, the pro-EU crowd have had little to no chance to say why they want to remain members, whereas there's been a rather concerted effort over the last 15 years or so against by certain media outlets. There's a reason support has fallen around 20 points in that time.

There are nervous rumblings from a number of groups, and I think if the referendum gets the go-ahead we'll see a pretty major campaign; after all, they'll have enormous amounts of money on their side compared to the anti crowd, as the EU is definitely in corporate interests. I suspect even the Daily Mail wouldn't say no to quadruple the ad revenue (although the Daily Express probably would).

 

[Robinson]

It would be a whole lot worse if she wasn't there, as it is in America. If you think it's bad here, at least you don't have politicians receiving hundreds of millions in campaign donations from corporations.

I never said the queen was actively meant to be stopping Machiavellian politicians. I said she was preventing them getting really dangerous power by simply existing. There is a big, big difference, and if you think Scotland won't have people trying to abuse the system if they become independent then you're completely delusional. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the whole independence movement is just a power-grab by someone abusing the system.

I'm saying what we have is the best of a bad lot. All the supposedly better options are massively open to abuse.

Oh I'm sure someone will try to abuse the system in an independent Scotland. The crucial difference after independence would be, if we get an irresponsible, evil government we can vote them out. At the moment, we can't vote out the irresponsible, evil totalitarians that currently rule the roost at Westminster (because they win votes in England from people who stand to gain from their irresponsibility).

 

[TheKnightWho]

Interesting that you bring 1979 into it. Thankfully the government won't be able to rig the results, like they did back then.

Having a minimum support criterion is not "rigging" the election. It's making sure enough people actually do support it, rather than just a vocal minority. After all, that referendum result pits everyone who supports it against everyone who can be bothered to say no; that's a pretty major difference.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Oh I'm sure someone will try to abuse the system in an independent Scotland. The crucial difference after independence would be, if we get an irresponsible, evil government we can vote them out. At the moment, we can't vote out the irresponsible, evil totalitarians that currently rule the roost at Westminster (because they win votes in England from people who stand to gain from their irresponsibility).

Except for the fact that Labour continue to be successful in Scotland. Or did it only start becoming tyrannical when the Conservatives had a majority in Westerminster?

Would you support a secession by Oxfordshire if Labour win the next general election, then? After all, Labour would have only got in because people voted for them out of their own interests. (Hint: This is true for every election win ever. Obviously people vote in their own interests!)

 

[Robinson]

Having a minimum support criterion is not "rigging" the election. It's making sure enough people actually do support it, rather than just a vocal minority. After all, that referendum result pits everyone who supports it against everyone who can be bothered to say no; that's a pretty major difference.

Err, really? So you have the psychic powers to work out the voting intentions of everyone who didn't vote? Including those who had died in the previous 6 months but hadn't been taken off the electoral roll (cos it wasn't completely up to date)?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Err, really? So you have the psychic powers to work out the voting intentions of everyone who didn't vote? Including those who had died in the previous 6 months but hadn't been taken off the electoral roll (cos it wasn't completely up to date)?

Those who support change tend to go out and vote. Those who don't often can't be bothered to. This is a well-known phenomenon, and I'm pretty sure is used in referendums around the world to make sure that a vocal minority can't force an issue through when the majority don't really care about it enough to go out and vote, but don't want things to actually change.

Even if it was rigged as you say through the role being out of date, you needed more than 40% of the total population to vote yes. Even if the no vote had 100,000 "dead" votes, there could be no secession unless the yes vote achieved more than that 40% (as well as winning the referendum). You won the referendum, but didn't achieve enough yes votes in total, so it makes your argument pretty rubbish.

 

[Robinson]

Those who support change tend to go out and vote. Those who don't often can't be bothered to. This is a well-known phenomenon.

Conveniently forgetting the usual section of the population who either aren't well-enough informed or who are undecided, or who actively don't get involved in politics.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Conveniently forgetting the usual section of the population who either aren't well-enough informed or who are undecided, or who actively don't get involved in politics.

Those are exactly the sort of people I'm referring to, in fact. If they're not interested in politics or aren't well-informed, you can hardly say they want a change from the status-quo or if they don't. If they wanted change they'd go vote, if they didn't they might not bother, though. That's just the way of the human brain, for better or worse.

Hell, I don't really care either way if Scotland secedes, but I'm just sick of these crap economic arguments, dodgy claims about tyrannical governments and cynical attempts to force through the political will of what is objectively the minority of the Scottish population.

 

[Robinson]

Those are exactly the sort of people I'm referring to, in fact.

A further point to make refers to the majority of Scots who, whether they refer to it as independence, want more powers for the Scottish Parliament. The No campaign is stringing them along with jam-tomorrow promises, misleading the nation into thinking that if they vote No they'll be voting for "devo-whatever".

Of course, if it is a No vote it will not be taken that way by the UK Parliament. Instead, they will insist on rolling back devolution, placing the Scottish Government in a stranglehold and preventing it from implementing the progressive policies that mark them as better politicians than those at Westminster.

The fly in the ointment, however, is that devo-whatever will not be an option on the referendum. So even if it is a No vote in September, mark my words, we will not go away quietly.

 

[meridian2]

Conveniently forgetting the usual section of the population who either aren't well-enough informed or who are undecided, or who actively don't get involved in politics.

Sometimes ignorance is bliss though. You're clinging onto the hope that they are so 'uneducated', they will vote 'Yes'. I'll tell you now: cowards usually influence other cowards, coercing them in fact. If I was so 'uninformed', I would most likely be looking to you and what you will be voting for. Deny that all you like, that is a fundamental fact of life.

 

[transmanche]

I'd say it's probably the opposite, actually. Right now, the pro-EU crowd have had little to no chance to say why they want to remain members, whereas there's been a rather concerted effort over the last 15 years or so against by certain media outlets. There's a reason support has fallen around 20 points in that time.

In the same way that the HSE has a website for debunking "'elf and safety" myths (often perpetuated by certain media outlets), the European Commission has a similar website to debunk some of the more hysterical anti-EU media rants.

It can often make interesting reading...

 

[Robinson]

Those are exactly the sort of people I'm referring to, in fact. If they're not interested in politics or aren't well-informed, you can hardly say they want a change from the status-quo or if they don't. If they wanted change they'd go vote, if they didn't they might not bother, though. That's just the way of the human brain, for better or worse.

Hell, I don't really care either way if Scotland secedes, but I'm just sick of these crap economic arguments, dodgy claims about tyrannical governments and cynical attempts to force through the political will of what is objectively the minority of the Scottish population.

The Westminster government is corrupt and tyrannical.

This is not a dodgy claim
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Sometimes ignorance is bliss though. You're clinging onto the hope that they are so 'uneducated', they will vote 'Yes'. I'll tell you now: cowards usually influence other cowards, coercing them in fact. If I was so 'uninformed', I would most likely be looking to you and what you will be voting for. Deny that all you like, that is a fundamental fact of life.

No, the cowards were the Better Together activists I met at Helensburgh Central station this morning, handing out leaflets which had an outright lie printed on them. Demonstrating their usual tactic of fear and doom-mongering to try to tap into people's uncertainty. They are cowards; Yes Scotland campaigners are not.

 

[TheKnightWho]

A further point to make refers to the majority of Scots who, whether they refer to it as independence, want more powers for the Scottish Parliament. The No campaign is stringing them along with jam-tomorrow promises, misleading the nation into thinking that if they vote No they'll be voting for "devo-whatever".

Of course, if it is a No vote it will not be taken that way by the UK Parliament. Instead, they will insist on rolling back devolution, placing the Scottish Government in a stranglehold and preventing it from implementing the progressive policies that mark them as better politicians than those at Westminster.

The fly in the ointment, however, is that devo-whatever will not be an option on the referendum. So even if it is a No vote in September, mark my words, we will not go away quietly.

And that's just a load of speculation. What are you grounding it in, exactly?

Alex Salmond himself pushed for no-devo, as he knows that a lot of people would vote for it! Jesus Christ, do you not know the major things your own movement has done?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Westminster government is corrupt and tyrannical.

This is not a dodgy claim
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Another Angry Voice. That well-known unbiased news source.

And seriously? Are you actually using an opinion piece about Ed Miliband as proof that all of Westminster is corrupt? Bloody hell...

 

[Robinson]

Salmond did not push for no-devo; he indicated, out of pragmatism and interest in democracy (knowing that many Scots might want it as an option) that he would be open to the devo-whatever option being included on the referendum ballot. This option was rejected by the No side. At the same time, Salmond clearly indicated that his party would not themselves be part of any devo-whatever campaign, and that they would retain independence as their tenet.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Another Angry Voice. That well-known unbiased news source.

And seriously? Are you actually using an opinion piece about Ed Miliband as proof that all of Westminster is corrupt? Bloody hell...

No more biased than the mainstream media, almost all of which supports one of the orthodox neoliberal totalitarian parties (with the exception of the Independent). In fact, less biased, since the author does not take kickbacks or donations from any corporates or political parties.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Salmond did not push for no-devo; he indicated, out of pragmatism and interest in democracy (knowing that many Scots might want it as an option) that he would be open to the devo-whatever option being included on the referendum ballot. This option was rejected by the No side. At the same time, Salmond clearly indicated that his party would not themselves be part of any devo-whatever campaign, and that they would retain independence as their tenet.

And this is why no-one is taking your side seriously. You are constantly demonising the opposition, making up rubbish (it is objectively true that Salmond pushed for no devo-max) and have some pathological refusal to enter into discourse on the issue that doesn't devolve into some emotional drivel.

Like I said, I don't care which way Scotland votes, but you're not convincing anyone at the moment that there's anything in it other than some ridiculous Braveheart fantasy.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No more biased than the mainstream media, almost all of which supports one of the orthodox neoliberal totalitarian parties (with the exception of the Independent). In fact, less biased, since the author does not take kickbacks or donations from any corporates or political parties.

This is exactly what I mean. This is almost conspiracy-theory level ridiculous.

The "mainstream media" are not some homogeneous bloc working together to fool you all. You're being immensely simplistic, and it's damaging your own cause. They're in competition against each other, have enormously different views and are immensely critical of politicians. Get a grip.

 

[Robinson]

I've never even watched Braveheart, yet you're telling me I'm basing my opinions on "some Braveheart fantasy"?

Brilliant

 

[TheKnightWho]

I've never even watched Braveheart, yet you're telling me I'm basing my opinions on "some Braveheart fantasy"?

Brilliant

Yes, yes I am. It's about the only remotely convincing thing you've come up with.

(Or wait, maybe it's called a metaphor? Ever heard of those?)

 

[Robinson]

Here is a link to what Alex Salmond actually said in his speech which you referred to.

To me it is abundantly clear that he is not proposing that the SNP campaigns for further devolution. He explicitly says it is a "legitimate proposal" but continues by saying that he and his party will not be involved in such a proposal. He put the ball in the unionists' court. The unionists refused to consider drawing up their own proposal. It is blindingly obvious if you actually listen to or read what the man himself says.

Quite how you can read that and still think Salmond and the SNP have campaigned for devolution is frankly beyond me.

 

[Yew]

I wonder if it would have been prudent to draw up the terms of the seperation before the refterendum, so that the Scottish people could make an informed choice. Instead of something based upon Alex Salmond's wish list.

Lets face it, in the case of independence, it could result in a great deal for the scots, or a truly awful one.

 

[Robinson]

I wonder if it would have been prudent to draw up the terms of the seperation before the refterendum, so that the Scottish people could make an informed choice. Instead of something based upon Alex Salmond's wish list.

Lets face it, in the case of independence, it could result in a great deal for the scots, or a truly awful one.

Again, Westminster has had the opportunity to get someone to the negotiating table; Westminster has refused to do so. I also remind you that the No campaign was, from the outset, utterly confident it would win.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Regarding what Clip and Johnuk123 were discussing before, no UK government is ever bound by the last one, so they're free to do literally what they want. Similarly (and I'm going back a good while to my A-level Politics here!) public referendums aren't legally binding either, I think.

Regarding the Queen / House of Lords, and I say this as someone who is a dyed-in-the-wool libertarian (probably on the border of anarcho-capitalism); whilst I'm not overjoyed with out political set-up, having the perpetual neutrality of the Lords and monarchy is so, so important, mainly for the reasons TheKnightWho listed. You can complain it stifles democracy and all that, but remove them and you potentially enter very dangerous territory for full-blown totalitarianism. Is there anyone who seriously wishes David Cameron and Gordon Brown had more power than they do (or did)?

 

[Robinson]

Are you sure the Lords are neutral? I'm not.

 

[Butts]

A further point to make refers to the majority of Scots who, whether they refer to it as independence, want more powers for the Scottish Parliament.

If they want more power why have they not used the existing ability they have to vary the rate of income tax in Scotland ?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Are you sure the Lords are neutral? I'm not.

I'm not 100% sure either, but I'd rather have them as hawks watching over what the Commons do than have them not exist at all. We need them to keep the government firmly in check and grounded. If you complain about the tyrannical workings of Thatcher and Cameron imagine what it would be like if it was just them and their MPs who decided what happened!

 

[transmanche]

Are you sure the Lords are neutral? I'm not.

They to tend not to be so bothered by adhering to a party whip.

For example, in an earlier post you referred to the "gagging bill". In the Commons the government got a majority of around 40. But in the Lords, it was a dead heat - the bill only passing due to the convention that in the case of a tie, the government wins.